UK set for US-style software patent laws

Software writers would be able to patent their programs in the UK for the first time under law changes being considered by the European Commission.

Currently, there is ambiguity over the status of software patents in member countries, according to the Commission. In the UK, software is specifically excluded from qualifying for patent status.

The Commission has started a consultation process, which will last until 15 December, to address what it calls the lack of consistent, European Union-wide legislation, which could hold back growth in the IT industry.

IT lobbyists have communicated two positions to the Commission. One was that patents stimulate innovation by providing adequate protection of the substantial amounts of money and resources devoted to their research and development. On the other hand, the open source community argues that patents would be restrictive.

However, the Commission is undoubtedly moving towards legislation, having recognised the need for action regarding patent protection for computer-implemented innovations back in February 1999.

In a statement, the Commission said: "Computer programs 'as such' are excluded from patentability. Yet, thousands of patents for technical inventions using a computer program have been granted by national patent offices and by the European Patent Office. Harmonisation of national patent laws on the issue is therefore necessary."

Moves to bring in legislation changes could be boosted by an inter-governmental conference to be held in Munich next month.

"It is possible that this conference will decide to delete computer programs from the list of items that cannot be patented," said the Commission.

Europe is far stricter on patents than in the US and Japan, where patents are readily granted to innovators in the computing industry.

US patents don't, however, carry the same weight as they do in the UK. Many thousands of patents are issued every year in the areas of 'Computer Systems' and 'Computer Applications'. To qualify for registration, an invention is supposed to be 'new' or 'not obvious'.

The main problem is that the US Patent Office is overrun with applications and doesn't have the resources to research 'Prior Art' to the level of detail required. Prior Art is the term used for evidence that proves that the idea isn't new.

Indeed, this has resulted in a number of everyday interactions being patented. For example, using a credit card to buy goods online, electronic shopping carts (OpenMarket 5715314 and 5724424), embedding hot links in emails to past customers, saying 'click here for our new site' (NetDelivery 5790793), and rewarding people for reading your advertising (Cybergold 5794210).